Pay the CA, don't pay the CA? Conflicting posts

[stalwart]

I've been reading the posts here and some people say to pay CA's, others say don't, they're scumbags and you can't trust 'em, deal only with the OC.

Which is it? And how can you deal only with the OC when you can't get past the first service rep, who will only give you the CA's phone # or tell you to talk to a debt management company -- which some posts here say are mostly scammers.

It's confusing and the more I read the more conflicting advice I see.

[JustaTexan]

That's the thing about a public board such as this one, you will get many different opinions. And I personally think that is a good thing. You read up as much as you can, get all the varying opinions, and then make a decision.

We can offer advice but ultimately it is up to you to decide what you think is best for your situation.

Why don't you call up Chase again and when you get a rep-before you say anything else-just ask to be transferred to the hardship dept. Or just keep calling until you get somebody who is actually human and will just listen to you without being all scripted.

[stalwart]

That's the thing about a public board such as this one, you will get many different opinions. And I personally think that is a good thing. You read up as much as you can, get all the varying opinions, and then make a decision.

We can offer advice but ultimately it is up to you to decide what you think is best for your situation.

Why don't you call up Chase again and when you get a rep-before you say anything else-just ask to be transferred to the hardship dept. Or just keep calling until you get somebody who is actually human and will just listen to you without being all scripted.

I called again and when I asked to be transferred to the hardship dept. she said if an account has been charged off then I have to deal with the CA. So I asked her if there was any way that Chase would take my account back from the CA. She told me to call a debt management agency, have them write up a proposal to Chase and if Chase approves, they will take back my account.

So, according to this rep, whom I can't get past, my only choices are dealing with a debt management co. (who might be scammers) or the CA (who might be scumbags).

At this point, I have no idea what to do next.

[JustaTexan]

I called again and when I asked to be transferred to the hardship dept. she said if an account has been charged off then I have to deal with the CA. So I asked her if there was any way that Chase would take my account back from the CA. She told me to call a debt management agency, have them write up a proposal to Chase and if Chase approves, they will take back my account.

So, according to this rep, whom I can't get past, my only choices are dealing with a debt management co. (who might be scammers) or the CA (who might be scumbags).

At this point, I have no idea what to do next.

Call them back. It may be too late for Chase to take back the account but you won't know that until you call and make sure. Talk to somebody else. I recommend not saying anything but "please transfer me to the hardship dept." when you get a rep. Don't let them squeeze any identifying info from you.

[admin]

Read this....

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/repair/five-collection-methods.shtml

[stalwart]

Thank you for the link. This site (and the people here) have been so helpful. I can't imagine how I'd be dealing with this mess if I hadn't found this place.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

It's preferable to pay an OC directly if they OC agrees; however, that isn't always possible. So, once a CA has been properly vetted through the DV process there is no harm in paying the CA.

However, as I said in one of your other threads, going through the DV process on debts as large as yours which you don't have the money to pay and no income and no assets, there is little reason to go though the DV process...a well crafted letter explaining your situation is probably the best course.

[admin]

However, as I said in one of your other threads, going through the DV process on debts as large as yours which you don't have the money to pay and no income and no assets, there is little reason to go though the DV process...a well crafted letter explaining your situation is probably the best course.

Except if they can't validate (chances are high), then the CA have to leave the OP alone. DVing is always a good idea (although the 623 method sometimes is more powerful).

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Except if they can't validate (chances are high), then the CA have to leave the OP alone. DVing is always a good idea (although the 623 method sometimes is more powerful).

Except the debt his OP has been talking about (in other threads) is a $15K debt owed to Chase Bank and very new...the CA may or may not leave her alone but Chase is probably not going to leave it alone for long.

Under the circumstances, I see very little to gain by going through the DV process and certainly, the CA isn't going to have any trouble at al validating unless they just don't want to bother.

[admin]

Under the circumstances, I see very little to gain by going through the DV process and certainly, the CA isn't going to have any trouble at al validating unless they just don't want to bother.

Why do you say that? In my experience talking with people day in and day out about their debts in collection, CAs almost NEVER validate no matter how new. The paper the JDBs buy doesn't come with documentation.

[Debt Guy]

CAs almost NEVER validate no matter how new.

I don't know who you are talking to. From reading the many posts on the board, seems to me that validations are more common than not. Remember that the standard for validation is very low.

A CA who does not validate in all probability returned the debt to the OC.

The paper the JDBs buy doesn't come with documentation.

That does not mean that documentation is not available -- they just have to pay for it and it takes some time (I see on the board all the time that someone sent a DV and all was silent for six months and BOOM along comes a plethora of statements). For about the last 5 years every major bank images their documentation (disk space got cheap). AMEX and Citibank started the program about 7 or 8 years ago.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Why do you say that? In my experience talking with people day in and day out about their debts in collection, CAs almost NEVER validate no matter how new. The paper the JDBs buy doesn't come with documentation.

I hate to disagree with you but...

The CA hasn’t even made initial contact yet.

We aren't talking about some JDB who is last in a chain of four previous creditors who has no records or paper trail or some OOS or nearly OOS debt.

We aren't talking about some puny little debt that a creditor/CA isn’t going to waste time on at the first sign of resistance.

This is a new $15K debt still owned by Chase (the OC) whom I sure has all the documentation they need to substantiate their position.

Whether she does or doesn’t go through the DV process and whether or not the CA validates the debt, going through the DV process isn’t going to solve her problem.

I'm the first to admit that the DV process is the appropriate response to a CA's initial contact most of the time; perhaps even the vast majority of the time; but it's not a one size fits all proposition…sometimes it’s just not needed…sometimes, it can serve to make a bad situation worse.

I think this is one of those times.

EDIT: It does appear, from other threads, that the OP is intent on paying (getting the money from family) so it is important that if payment is ultimately made through the CA; that the CA be properly vetted. I'm still not sure if a DV is truly needed to do that since Chase already confirmed to the OP who they hired to colelct for them but it likely wouldn't hurt anything to use the DV process

[admin]

I hate to disagree with you but...

yer funny

[admin]

CAs almost NEVER validate no matter how new.

I don't know who you are talking to. From reading the many posts on the board, seems to me that validations are more common than not. Remember that the standard for validation is very low.

In 9 out of 10 cases: a computer print out is sent (not validation) OR nothing is sent

In an EXTREMELY small percentage of cases, an actual statement is sent (usually Citibank accounts)

A CA who does not validate in all probability returned the debt to the OC.

Nope, they are sold to the next CA. Chargeoffs are almost never assigned these days, they are SOLD.

The paper the JDBs buy doesn't come with documentation.

That does not mean that documentation is not available -- they just have to pay for it and it takes some time (I see on the board all the time that someone sent a DV and all was silent for six months and BOOM along comes a plethora of statements). For about the last 5 years every major bank images their documentation (disk space got cheap). AMEX and Citibank started the program about 7 or 8 years ago.

Ummmmm....no. Once the debt is in a CAs hands, the OC has cut all ties. I know of NO cases where the JDB has gotten documentation from the OC while at the CA. It's even rare if the CA is suing the debtor.

[stalwart]

Well, I called Chase twice this morning to see if they could get my account back from GCS. No go.

Does Chase outsource their customer service to India? I called 2 differend phone numbers, got 2 different people both with Indian accents.

Both men said once it's in the collection agencies hands, even though Chase still owns my debt, it's Chase's policy not to get the account back. I asked why. They said that's just the way it is.

When I asked to speak to a supervisor, at first they said the supervisor would tell me the same thing. When I asked to speak to a supervisor anyway, they "looked around the room" and "didn't see any supervisors".

Both said I could trust GCS with my money because they are working on Chase's behalf. I said how do I know GCS won't tack on extra fees and they said that they will only ask for the amount I owe Chase.

So, what now? Should I send the DV even though 3 customer reps have confirmed GCS is working on Chase's behalf to collect the money?

One customer rep said that at this point it was a matter of settling the account not making payments. So does that mean I can negotiate with GCS on paying just a percentage of the debt as a settlement? And if so, what percentage do I say I'm able to pay since it's not like they bought my debt from Chase for pennies on the dollar. They're just trying to get a commission.

[deltadawn]

This may be off the topice - however, I did have to contact HSBC. I asked where they were located and when they told me they were in India, I immediately asked to speak with someone in the US. I did not give them any information re. why I was calling. (CRA told me that they had reported an incorrect SSN and I called to correct it) They transferred my call. (It did take approximately 30 minutes before I actually got someone in the US)

Maybe if you were able to get past the call center in India, they would be able to assist you.

[stalwart]

Thanks, I'll try that. Actually, the first number I called, the first person who answered was American, but after she pulled up my account she said it was with another dept. and I'd have to talk to them about it. That's when I was sent to India.

Maybe they pawn off all their deadbeat customers on Indian reps. ::shrug::

[LUEser]

Nah, it's just standard practice to outsource a lot of the call center calls to India. Cheap labor, and increased availability.

Not sure how Chase does things, but you could try to get to their "hardship" or similar department. And usually the only way you'll get there is to get past the first couple lines of phone defense.

That said, when you do call, see how far you can get without giving them any personally identifying information. If they don't know who you are, then they can't transfer you off.

Sounds as if Chase is as bad as Countrywide (BoA), in terms of getting someone on the phone who can get something actually done.

[JustaTexan]

but after she pulled up my account

Liann, remember how I told you not to let them know who you were? That's why. Because as soon as they pull up your account, (which is probably coded or flagged in a certain way), they are trained to transfer you or give you some kind of line. It's usually all scripted.

You have to be evasive about this. Shute you could even pretend to be somebody just doing research or a lawyer needing to talk to the hardship dept. only about his client's personal issues. I know it sounds crazy, but you never know what will work and what won't. Get creative here!

If you get through to the hardship dept, there is a huge chance they still won't pull the account back, but you should atleast try.

[stalwart]

Argh! I guess I forgot that one crucial detail. My head is so loaded with information from the last couple days I'm surprised I'm able to retain anything.

[JustaTexan]

Argh! I guess I forgot that one crucial detail. My head is so loaded with information from the last couple days I'm surprised I'm able to retain anything.

Understandable!

Just don't get your hopes up that they will pull back the account. I'm one of these the cup is half full people so I'm hopful, but odds are they probably won't. Depends on who you get in contact with and what their mood is like. I will be crossing my fingers for you!

[stalwart]

Great. I just got a notice in the mail from a CA about Chase. But is it from GCS? No it's from Creditors Interchange. The $15,000 I owe to Chase is on 2 cards - 1 for $5000 + fees and the other for $10,000 + fees.

Stupid me, I never figured on having to deal with 2 CA's. Every time I called Chase and they asked for an account number I gave them only one thinking since I was delinquent on both accounts, when they looked up my name, it would show both debts. Why would Chase use 2 CA's when they're trying to get money out of the same person?

What I mess. I know I got myself into it, but still...what a mess.

[admin]

About India call centers:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/wordpress/2008/08/20/india-debt-collection-call-centers-who-is-responsible/

Sounds like your collection has moved on from one agency to another. Deal with the last one. Don't bother with Chase, they are out of the picture.

[Debt Guy]

In 9 out of 10 cases: a computer print out is sent (not validation) OR nothing is sent

In an EXTREMELY small percentage of cases, an actual statement is sent (usually Citibank accounts)

Technically accurate, but misleading. In most cases nothing is sent as nothing is required to be sent. The plain text of the FDCPA is clear "name and address of the OC". Wollman requires verification with the OC and most verifications are electronic -- so there is nothing to send.

Nope, they are sold to the next CA. Chargeoffs are almost never assigned these days, they are SOLD.

First, accounts are not sold to CAs. They are sold to debt buyers -- major difference.

Also, you are wrong. It is quite common for major credit card companies to place the accounts with an outside agency before sale. Just like the OP in this case. Read the posts on the board and think about it for a while and you will agree with me.

Ultimately, virtually all chargeoffs are sold. Some "fresh" chargeoffs are sold and most are not until they have been through at least one agency -- sometimes two or three. This strategy varies by bank and changes from time to time depend on the market conditions. Right now, there is a flood of chargeoffs and prices are on the downswing. That tempts the bank to hang on another six months.

Ummmmm....no. Once the debt is in a CAs hands, the OC has cut all ties. I know of NO cases where the JDB has gotten documentation from the OC while at the CA. It's even rare if the CA is suing the debtor.

Admin, I swear I don't know where you get this stuff. The reason the banks began to image those documents was when they realized it helped them in court and the docs had value later -- they charge the DB for what they get.

Besides, you are speaking wrongly -- CAs do not sue debtors as they do not have standing. Creditors sue debtors -- the creditor may be either the OC or a subsequent holder (a debt buyer).

Again, DBs get docs. Read the posts on the board. When Midland sends someone a batch of statements, where do you think they came from?

I know you have good intent -- but you are just wrong.

[debtorshusband]

Hi Debt Guy,

A number of times you have posted statements similar to this:

In most cases nothing is sent as nothing is required to be sent. The plain text of the FDCPA is clear "name and address of the OC". Wollman requires verification with the OC and most verifications are electronic -- so there is nothing to send.

I'm referring specifically the "name and address only" part. Every time I just let it go, but for some reason, today I can't.

The first sentence, that nothing is required to be sent, is certainly correct if the CA decides to cease collection instead of sending anything. OK.

But let's look at the "plain text of the FDCPA." It says that after initial contact the CA must send a letter with the amount of the debt, the name of the the creditor and the following 3 statements:

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days

after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or

any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the

debt collector;

So in a DV letter, you say you dispute the debt, and now they can't "assume" it's valid. OK.

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector

in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any

portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain

verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the

consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed

to the consumer by the debt collector; and

So let's assume the judgment part doesn't apply, so it's saying if in the DV letter you dispute the debt or any part of it, they "will obtain verification of the debt" and "a copy of such verification...will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector." So it seems to me this means "name and address" isn't enough. I don't understand what you mean when you say "verifications are electronic so there's nothing to send."

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within

the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer

with the name and address of the original creditor, if different

from the current creditor.

And that's the part where if you ask for the name and address of the OC, they have to send it to you.

So I can envision a scenario where if you specifically "dispute" in your DV letter, paragraphs 3 and 4 are invoked, but they don't have to send the name and address of the OC. Conversely, sending the name and address of the OC in response to a dispute doesn't satisfy (it seems to me.)

It would be a pretty pathetic DV letter that doesn't say "I dispute", but only asks for the name and address of the OC, which would allow the CA to go ahead and "assume the debt is valid" (paragraph 3) and not require them to send verification as per paragraph 4, and allow them do do nothing but send the name and address of the OC.

What do you think?

Regards,

DH